George Lucas Destroyed Modernity

If there was a moment when the culture of enlightened modernity in the United States gave way to the sickly culture of romantic primitivism, it was when the movie “Star Wars” premiered in 1977. A child of the 1960s, I had grown up with the optimistic vision symbolized by “Star Trek,” according to which planets, as they developed technologically and politically, graduated to membership in the United Federation of Planets, a sort of galactic League of Nations or UN. When I first watched “Star Wars,” I was deeply shocked. The representatives of the advanced, scientific, galaxy-spanning organization were now the bad guys, and the heroes were positively medieval — hereditary princes and princesses, wizards and ape-men. Aristocracy and tribalism were superior to bureaucracy. Technology was bad. Magic was good.

One of the things that Lind’s preferred states all have in common is that they are expansive, bureaucratic, centralized states ruled by autocrats or unaccountable overseers, and they are capable of extracting far larger revenues out of their economies than their successors. Obviously, Lind finds most of these traits desirable, and he seems not terribly bothered by the autocracy. In the case of the UFP, one simply has a technocrat’s utopian post-political fantasy run riot. Indeed, the political organization of the Federation has always struck me as stunningly implausible and unrealistic even by the standards of science fiction. It was supposed to be a galactic alliance with a massive military whose primary purposes were exploration and peacekeeping, and which had overcome all social problems by dint of technological progress. If ever there were a vision to appeal to a certain type of romantic idealists with no grasp of the corrupting nature of power or the limits of human nature, this would have to be it.

Lind’s article is not very persuasive, not least since his treatment of the change from antiquity to the middle ages is seriously flawed. Lind writes:

But few would disagree that the Europe of Charlemagne was more backward in its mindset, at least at the elite level, than the Rome of Augustus or the Alexandria of the Ptolemies.

Nor are the great gains of decolonization and personal liberation in recent decades necessarily incompatible with an intellectual and cultural Dark Age. After all, the fall of the Roman empire led to the emergence of many new kingdoms, nations and city-states, and slavery withered away by the end of the Middle Ages in Europe.

Well, count me among the “few” that would disagree. For one thing, the “Europe of Charlemagne” was also the Europe of the Byzantines, and under both the Carolingians and the Macedonians later in the ninth century there was extensive cultivation of literary and artistic production that significantly undermines claims that this was an “intellectual and cultural Dark Age.” This was an era of substantial manuscript production, and one marked by the learning of Eriugena and Photios. The Carolingian period was actually one of the more significant moments of political reunification in Europe prior to the later middle ages, but it is true that Charlemagne and his successors did not have a large administrative state apparatus at their disposal. The Iconoclastic emperors in the east were hostile to religious images, but in many other respects they cultivated learning and drew on the mathematical and scientific thought that was flourishing at that time among the ‘Abbasids. Obviously, we are speaking of the elite, but it is the elites of different eras that Lind is comparing. The point is not to reverse the old prejudice against medieval Europe and direct it against classical antiquity, nor we do have to engage in Romantic idealization of medieval societies, but we should acknowledge that this approach to history that Lind offers here abuses those periods and cultures that do not flatter the assumptions or values of modern Westerners. For that matter, it distorts and misrepresents the periods and cultures moderns adopt as their precursors, because it causes them to value those periods and cultures because of how they seem to anticipate some aspect of modernity rather than on their own terms.

There are very real trade-offs in opting for political and economic decentralization, just as there are significant costs in opting for centralization. Under a decentralized arrangement, efficiency and utility are going to be sacrificed for the sake of other goods (e.g., preserving local traditions and communities, sustainability, social solidarity, cultural identity, greater political autonomy, etc.) that Lind either ignores or simply declares backwards. Lind prefers one tendency that leads towards empire, concentrations of power and wealth, and technocratic government, and he is dismayed that anyone would object to the costs that these things impose. He would prefer instead that we pretend that those costs don’t exist, and he wants us to accept that resistance to the advance of Progress is futile. It is telling that his concluding proposal sounds a great deal like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

“It was supposed to be a galactic alliance with a massive military whose primary purposes were exploration and peacekeeping, and which had overcome all social problems by dint of technological progress. If ever there were a vision to appeal to a certain type of romantic idealists with no grasp of the corrupting nature of power or the limits of human nature, this would have to be it.”

As you no doubt know, Trek’s creator, Gene Roddenberry was a devout atheist and proud humanist. He believed that humans could evolve, both physically and intellectually. This meant he could safely discard notions of original sin and any limits on the potential of human nature.

One question that did confuse me about the Federation was their system of exchange. Sometimes they indicated that they had done away with money, yet on some episodes they did have currency. Indeed, they had a casino on one of their outposts!

I think Daniel’s rusty about his Trek! But this might be partly due to reasons cfountain72 mentions.

DL: “One of the things that Lind’s preferred states all have in common is that they are expansive, bureaucratic, centralized states ruled by autocrats or unaccountable overseers, and they are capable of extracting far larger revenues out of their economies than their successors.”

In the Trek I’m most familiar with (Original and Next Generation), the Federation is a democracy, led by leaders neither unaccountable nor autocratic. Though the shows and films are Starfleet-centric and don’t spend much time on Fed politics, they indicate the Fed has a president and certain governing bodies.

They don’t extract revenue, either, because money no longer exists. During Roddenberry’s day, the Ferengi aliens existed to provide some ongoing satire of capitalist attitudes, but there was no longer poverty or other ills caused by lack of money.

However, as cfountain72 indicates, I think starting with Deep Space Nine (which aired well after Roddenberry died, and created by people free to deviate from his vision), they wanted to go for some seedier, Star Wars Cantina-type settings; hence a casino on board the space station, “gold pressed latinum” money, and the expansion of the Ferengi characters.

I didn’t read Lind’s article beyond your quotes, but is it really fair to say he’s okay with autocracy?

As cfountain72 gets at, it would be most accurate to say Roddenberry’s Trek depicted not a fantasizing about technocratic, centralized control, but an idealistic philosophy about human progress. Conflict and dangers remain (as necessary for a TV drama), but Trek imagines the possibility that future earthlings attain most of their better angels.

I forgot to clarify that Roddenberry’s idealism does involve a more liberal, centralized government, but this is the result of the “better angels”/human progress element. The potential benefits of decentralization Daniel mentions — including greater political autonomy — are not necessary under this scheme, because humanity has “matured”, and also become responsible stewards of technology. Hence, they can come together to safely run powerful (even multi-planet) government.

Again, this is part of a certain idealistic philosophy. And some exceptions remain — e.g. the Klingons are very protective of their cultural identity and local traditions, and chose only to ally with the Federation, not join it.

I always saw the Star Wars’ Republic / Empire distinction mirroring Rome. (Yeah, pretty astute, huh?) Lind made two mistakes though: 1) Magic and technology were on both sides, 2) Chewbacca would rip Lind’s arm out of its socket if he was called an ape-man.

Yeah, the ape-man thing was crazy racist, everyone should be going after him for that.

He does indeed miss that tech and magic were on both sides, plus the bad guys had their own aristocratic Lords and Emperors, while the good guys, even the princess, were fighting for republicanism. And why were the good guys “tribal?” They were a colorblind coalition of different races were they not? Like the ape-men Lind sneers at so very racistly. The Empire on the other hand were all British guys.

The point is (other than Michael Lind is racist) that he only saw “bad” things being glamorized and “good” things being denounced, even though that wasn’t the case. And that was probably because he took the “good” things so for granted that he didnt even notice them on the good side (multicultural, fighting for the old republic etc) and disliked the “bad” things so much he overemphasized their correlation with the good side (chivalrous wizards offended him, but genocidal wizards he didnt notice).

Daniel, if you’re still reading comments on this post, thanks for mentioning Eriugena. I am embarrassed to admit that, as far as I recall, I had never heard of him (I guess Alcuin gathered up all the press), but am trying to reduce my ignorance by struggling through the SEP article on him (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scottus-eriugena/). As befits my nick, I despise Neoplatonism and am challenged to be charitable toward his thought, but once again you’ve pointed me in a useful direction. Many thanks.

Also, since Daniel’s focus is on foreign policy, it would be a shame to mention Star Trek and not mention the Prime Directive:

“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”

Not exactly the basis for a 26th century Freedom Agenda! While it was not applied as uniformly as one would hope, it does sound like a sci-fi variant of non-interventionism.

ps. Also it is sometimes glossed over, but Star Wars was about events ‘a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.’ Star Trek was, as mentioned, one man’s view of our possible future.

Live long and prosper. May the Force be with you. And peace be with you.

Re: Eriugena, you’re welcome. Even though he was a scholar at a later Carolingian court, and he wasn’t personally associated with Charlemagne, I thought he was a valid example of the revival of learning taking place in the west.